This last weekend Brian Hirshfield and I drove upstate to shoot a wedding.

It was a short trip, and we mostly used other cameras (not a great idea to use a system you're not intimately familiar for a wedding), but on the ride home we found a few targets of opportunity to try out the Phase One IQ260 Achromatic.

All shot with IQ260 Achromatic on Phase One DF+ with 55LS lens with Hoya 72R (720nm cut off IR pass, visible block filter).

Kind of looks like you were up near the Gunx (Schawangunks for your lay people).

Does the Achromatic do IR photography?

It's hard telling from these smaller pics, but I assume that the exposures here are dead on? Is there any loss of detail in the images due to over exposure? Or is the contrasty nature of a couple of the images a result of personal preferences in processing?

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture." Arnold NewmanDon't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself. William Faulkner

The contrast is entirely in the processing. By the nature of the sensor and IR spectrum the images as captured on the IQ260 Achromatic above 700nm are exceedingly low in contrast even in direct sunlight.

How are you finding the LS lenses in the IR space? On Nikon, I found even my best lenses blooming quite a bit. As I mentioned to you, the one lens that really shines in maintaining sharpness in the IR spectral range is the CO 60mm.

Doug, don't be so modest. I once spent a couple of hours on your site. I would, but 3 kids and a hairy job keep me elsewhere. In any case, I do hope to have mine next month, and am quite excited about the base ISO as well. Hand held shooting at the bleeding edge of quality maybe a reality for me again

I noticed the CI guys had tested with the B+W 486 filters for visible spectrum w/ UV/IR cutoff. As far as I know, Phase is not releasing anything similar to the TG1 at this point. Any thoughts on this, for pure b&w visible light shooting?

Doug, don't be so modest. I once spent a couple of hours on your site. I would, but 3 kids and a hairy job keep me elsewhere. In any case, I do hope to have mine next month, and am quite excited about the base ISO as well. Hand held shooting at the bleeding edge of quality maybe a reality for me again

In the spirit of your question and being somewhat certain of it's context having just browsed your last 50 posts; I spent the two hours with one hand in a jar of peanuts and the other down my pants.

If I am mistaken, then I apologize. I rarely look at other people's portfolios, but when I do, particularly those portfolios that contain a variety of styles, subjects, lighting, equipment, and most importantly, PURPOSE, I do spend time on most of the photos thinking about the lighting used, how it was composed, what was done at capture, what was done on PP etc.

In Doug's case, I was simply intrigued by the shear breadth of subjects and techniques. Doug was also kind enough to add very descriptive context to a number of sessions, which, again, add to the shared experienced when looking at his work.

I also specifically looked at his lighting style (natural vs. artificial) in the Naturescapes vs. Bodyscapes galleries. I think it quite intriguing to see similarities in his choice of natural lighting that he is able to carry over into a more controlled environment in the bodyscapes, and vice versa.

So, yes, I did spend a good part of an afternoon when I first ran into this link. Some time looking at the images and reading the text, and some additional time reflecting on Doug's body of work and approach and how it compared/contrasted with my approach, and ultimately, I guess the two main points of looking at anything - did I enjoy the experience in itself - YES; and did it add anything positive to my approach/style/technique going forward - YES.

In the spirit of your question and being somewhat certain of it's context having just browsed your last 50 posts; I spent the two hours with one hand in a jar of peanuts and the other down my pants.

If I am mistaken, then I apologize. I rarely look at other people's portfolios, but when I do, particularly those portfolios that contain a variety of styles, subjects, lighting, equipment, and most importantly, PURPOSE, I do spend time on most of the photos thinking about the lighting used, how it was composed, what was done at capture, what was done on PP etc.

In Doug's case, I was simply intrigued by the shear breadth of subjects and techniques. Doug was also kind enough to add very descriptive context to a number of sessions, which, again, add to the shared experienced when looking at his work.

I also specifically looked at his lighting style (natural vs. artificial) in the Naturescapes vs. Bodyscapes galleries. I think it quite intriguing to see similarities in his choice of natural lighting that he is able to carry over into a more controlled environment in the bodyscapes, and vice versa.

So, yes, I did spend a good part of an afternoon when I first ran into this link. Some time looking at the images and reading the text, and some additional time reflecting on Doug's body of work and approach and how it compared/contrasted with my approach, and ultimately, I guess the two main points of looking at anything - did I enjoy the experience in itself - YES; and did it add anything positive to my approach/style/technique going forward - YES.

Thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.

You must have a lot of free time. You are lucky that you have so much time. Do not waste your time watching mediocre pictures, just start shooting. With this amount of time, which you have. In a short time you reach this level of photos that Doug will spend time watching your web site. That's it.

Logged

Best regards,DF

-------------------------------------------WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE-------------------------------------------

Cannot make heads or tails of what you wrote above. If you are going to be a superstar under a fake name, best to do it with proper grammar, spelling and punctuation. I would also go easy on the happy faces, just a little contrary to the serious message you are attempting to deliver.

Cannot make heads or tails of what your wrote above. If you are going to be a superstar under a fake name, best to do it with proper grammar, spelling and punctuation. I would also go easy on the happy faces, just a little contrary to the serious message you are attempting to deliver.